Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

The effect of piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scaling devices on treatment outcomes

Webb, Chadleo Allan
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1429888732

Abstract Details

2015, Master of Dental Hygiene, Ohio State University, Dentistry.
There are two types of ultrasonic devices used by dental hygienists; magnetostrictive (M) and piezoelectric (P). Research supports using these devices during prophylaxes/periodontal debridement but there is little evidence determining which is superior. The purpose of this study was to determine if any differences between the magnetostrictive and piezoelectric scaling devices existed in calculus removal, patient preference and practitioner preference. Subjects included senior dental hygiene students and patients of The Ohio State University College of Dentistry. This double-blinded study employed a quantitative experimental randomized split mouth design on contra-lateral quadrants for the evaluation of calculus removed by each device. Five calibrated examiners recorded the presence of calculus on the quadrants assigned prior to and post treatment. Upon completion of each device, patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS) to gauge patient preference and each student completed a five point Likert survey to measure practitioner preference. Twenty-three subjects completed the study. Data reveals the M device removed more calculus than the P device (70.5% vs 66.1% respectively). Results from the student survey reveal the M device was significantly more user friendly than the P device. Device M scored an average total likert score of 21.0 vs. 18.7 for device P. Results from the patient VAS reveal M is preferred for discomfort, vibration and noise factors. This data provides strong evidence that device M is preferred for this group of hygiene students. However, all other differences in the data were not significant. This significant difference in student practitioner preference is likely due to a major limitation of the previous experience imbalance between the two devices. This reveals a need for required experiences with both ultrasonic devices throughout the dental hygiene students’ clinical education.
Michele Carr, MA (Advisor)
Rachel Henry , MS (Committee Member)
John Walters, DDS, MMSc (Committee Member)
38 p.
Dentistry
Ultrasonics; Magnetostrictive; Piezoelectric

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Webb, C. A. (2015). The effect of piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scaling devices on treatment outcomes [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1429888732

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Webb, Chadleo. The effect of piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scaling devices on treatment outcomes . 2015. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1429888732.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Webb, Chadleo. "The effect of piezoelectric and magnetostrictive scaling devices on treatment outcomes ." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2015. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1429888732

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1429888732
6,318
© 2015, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.